Ministry of Justice

HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) works to ensure its facilities comply with equalities law, in relation to the interpretation of sex under the Equality Act 2010.

HMCTS is presently awaiting updated cross-government guidance from the Office for Equality and Opportunity.

The Independent Sentencing Review (ISR) published its findings on 22 May 2025, and the previous Lord Chancellor welcomed the recommendations and accepted the majority of them in principle. The Sentencing Act takes forward many of the ISR recommendations and it received royal assent on 22 January, and the first tranche of measures will come into effect on 22 March. We are continuing to consider how we take forward the ISR's recommendations that do not require legislation.

The spend on electronic monitoring contracts in each of the last five financial years is presented in the table below:

The total number of individuals with an electronic monitoring device assigned at 31 December 2025 was 28,111. This figure comes from the Electronic Monitoring Statistics Publication: (Electronic Monitoring Statistics Publication, December 2025 - GOV.UK).

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/electronic-monitoring-statistics-publication-december-2025

The cost per tag information is commercially sensitive. The Ministry of Justice believes that releasing information on device costs would prejudice, or likely prejudice Allied Universal Electronic Monitoring’s (the provider of the monitoring equipment) commercial interests.

The latest assessment of average running costs per offender per year is £3,130 – related to direct EM costs only. That figure includes contracted out and internal costs but does not include the average cost of a probation or police officer supervising an individual with EM.

Tagging is a critical tool for punishing and monitoring offenders outside of prison which is why we are already tagging more offenders than ever before and will increase numbers further through the Sentencing Act.

For information relating to the additional supervision costs of managing an individual with EM please refer to the following answer: Written questions and answers - Written questions, answers and statements - UK Parliament

The spend on electronic monitoring contracts in each of the last five financial years is presented in the table below:

The total number of individuals with an electronic monitoring device assigned at 31 December 2025 was 28,111. This figure comes from the Electronic Monitoring Statistics Publication: (Electronic Monitoring Statistics Publication, December 2025 - GOV.UK).

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/electronic-monitoring-statistics-publication-december-2025

The cost per tag information is commercially sensitive. The Ministry of Justice believes that releasing information on device costs would prejudice, or likely prejudice Allied Universal Electronic Monitoring’s (the provider of the monitoring equipment) commercial interests.

The latest assessment of average running costs per offender per year is £3,130 – related to direct EM costs only. That figure includes contracted out and internal costs but does not include the average cost of a probation or police officer supervising an individual with EM.

Tagging is a critical tool for punishing and monitoring offenders outside of prison which is why we are already tagging more offenders than ever before and will increase numbers further through the Sentencing Act.

For information relating to the additional supervision costs of managing an individual with EM please refer to the following answer: Written questions and answers - Written questions, answers and statements - UK Parliament

The spend on electronic monitoring contracts in each of the last five financial years is presented in the table below:

The total number of individuals with an electronic monitoring device assigned at 31 December 2025 was 28,111. This figure comes from the Electronic Monitoring Statistics Publication: (Electronic Monitoring Statistics Publication, December 2025 - GOV.UK).

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/electronic-monitoring-statistics-publication-december-2025

The cost per tag information is commercially sensitive. The Ministry of Justice believes that releasing information on device costs would prejudice, or likely prejudice Allied Universal Electronic Monitoring’s (the provider of the monitoring equipment) commercial interests.

The latest assessment of average running costs per offender per year is £3,130 – related to direct EM costs only. That figure includes contracted out and internal costs but does not include the average cost of a probation or police officer supervising an individual with EM.

Tagging is a critical tool for punishing and monitoring offenders outside of prison which is why we are already tagging more offenders than ever before and will increase numbers further through the Sentencing Act.

For information relating to the additional supervision costs of managing an individual with EM please refer to the following answer: Written questions and answers - Written questions, answers and statements - UK Parliament

Enhancing our bilateral prisoner transfer capability is a government priority. We remain fully committed to transferring eligible foreign national offenders from the UK so they can serve the remainder of their sentences in their home country, and to repatriating British nationals imprisoned overseas.

Compulsory bilateral agreements

The UK has compulsory bilateral prisoner transfer agreements (PTAs) with Albania, Ghana, Libya, Nigeria and Rwanda. These agreements state that the consent of the prisoner is not required for transfer, although both States must agree to the transfer. The UK has also recently signed a compulsory bilateral PTA with Italy, which is currently undergoing parliamentary scrutiny and has not yet been ratified.

Voluntary bilateral agreements

The UK also has voluntary bilateral PTAs, where the consent of the prisoner to transfer is required in addition to the agreement of both States, with the following countries: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Brazil, Cuba, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, the Philippines, India, Iraq, Laos, Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Peru, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Thailand and Vietnam.

Multilateral arrangements

The UK has multilateral prisoner transfer arrangements with all States that are party to the 1983 Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons. This includes:

• All 27 European Union Member States.

• NonEU Council of Europe members: Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Türkiye and Ukraine.

• Non‑Council of Europe States (as the Convention is also open to non‑Council of Europe members): Australia, the Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Ghana, Honduras, India, Israel, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Panama, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea, Russia, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, the United States of America and Venezuela.

The UK also participates in the Scheme for the Transfer of Convicted Offenders within the Commonwealth, which provides prisoner transfer arrangements with: Kenya, Malawi, Maldives, Botswana, Tonga and Uganda.

This information is published in Table 1_A_21 of the Offender Management Statistics ‘annual’ prison population tables.

As of 30 June 2025, the most recent date for which statistics are available, 79 of those in custody described their ethnicity as Roma.

To note, the ‘Roma’ ethnicity code is a recent addition to the prison offender management system, and the ‘as at 30 June 2025’ data is the first publication of these figures. As such, we would expect numbers to increase over time as new prisoners entering the system are able to self-identify as ‘Roma’.

The National Year of Reading is a welcome opportunity to promote a wide range of activity to improve literacy and engagement with reading for people in custody and on probation.

As part of this work we have appointed the first ever Prison Reading Laureate, the author Lee Child. He will champion the transformative power of reading across the criminal justice system, continue expansion of his successful literacy pilot programme which has been running in a number of prisons since 2025 and will bring in more authors to work with prisons across the country, promoting the benefits of reading to rehabilitation.

Reading is a priority for HMPPS who work with many voluntary, community and social enterprise (VCSE) organisations such as the Reading Agency and National Literacy Trust. A programme of work is planned throughout this year to improve national access to books and facilitate workshops with authors. The Youth Custody Service is also launching its first ever Literacy Festival to inspire reading amongst some of the most complex children in our society.

Decisions about recognition of foreign judgments are made by the UK’s independent judiciary, with safeguards against recognition and enforcement being available.

There are various grounds on which a judge may refuse to recognise or enforce a foreign judgment, including for example where the foreign court acted without jurisdiction, the proceedings involved a breach of natural justice, or recognition would be contrary to public policy.

The Government engages regularly with the judiciary and stakeholders about the operation of frameworks for recognition and enforcement.

Decisions about recognition of foreign judgments are made by the UK’s independent judiciary, with safeguards against recognition and enforcement being available.

There are various grounds on which a judge may refuse to recognise or enforce a foreign judgment, including for example where the foreign court acted without jurisdiction, the proceedings involved a breach of natural justice, or recognition would be contrary to public policy.

The Government engages regularly with the judiciary and stakeholders about the operation of frameworks for recognition and enforcement.

Decisions about recognition of foreign judgments are made by the UK’s independent judiciary, with safeguards against recognition and enforcement being available.

There are various grounds on which a judge may refuse to recognise or enforce a foreign judgment, including for example where the foreign court acted without jurisdiction, the proceedings involved a breach of natural justice, or recognition would be contrary to public policy.

The Government engages regularly with the judiciary and stakeholders about the operation of frameworks for recognition and enforcement.

Officials from the Ministry of Justice regularly attend meetings to discuss matters of national security, defence and resilience as well as the associated public communications required to deliver these lines of efforts. The conversation on National Defence was a recommendation in the 2025 Strategic Defence Review (SDR), which the Government accepted. The Ministry of Defence is the lead department for delivering the SDR, with support from the Cabinet Office, and particularly from the National Security Secretariat.

As set out in the Strategic Defence Review, the national conversation will be a multi-year, cross-departmental effort designed to deliver on the whole-of-society approach to national security and defence allowing Government, the private sector and public to play their part in strengthening the UK’s resilience to any potential future shocks. This work addresses the risks and threats the UK faces, including those below and above the threshold of an armed attack.

The Ministry of Justice is actively supporting this work and regularly fields senior officials from across the Department, including the Permanent Secretary, to cross-government meetings on a range of issues, including national security, resilience and defence.

The new independent reporting channel may consider allegations of bullying, harassment, discrimination, sexual harassment or assault, or cases where serious safeguarding concerns are raised. Complaints may be upheld, partially upheld or not upheld, or mediation between parties may be recommended.

A number of cases are still being investigated. As we are still in the process of putting in place a system for analysing data relating to complaints made through the new reporting channel, it is not possible to provide the requested information at this stage.

A difference in figures reported by the Department for periods 5 July 2024 to 29 April 2025 and 5 July 2024 to 5 December 2025 is due to a difference in how incident records were queried and displayed, resulting in an inflated figure of 665 where some devices had been double counted.

The correct figure for the period of 5 July 2024 to 5 December 2025 is 324.

The Department is currently undertaking work to improve asset data quality, during which some devices previously been reported lost or stolen have been since recovered or identified as having been reported in error.

Obtaining the information requested relating to possible miscommunications with respect to person escort records would require each prison to undertake a manual search of all such records for the period in question. That could not be undertaken without incurring disproportionate cost.

When a prisoner arrives in prison reception, risk assessment procedures are carried out in accordance with HM Prison and Probation Service’s current policy frameworks. During the reception process, staff review all available documentation, including the person escort record, and any existing Digital Prison Service alerts, as well as undertaking an observational assessment of the prisoner’s presentation and behaviour. A structured reception screening is then carried out by both operational and healthcare staff, to identify any risks relating to suicide or self-harm, violence, vulnerability, physical or mental health issues, or other safeguarding concerns. In addition, a cell-sharing risk assessment (CSRA) is completed for all prisoners new to custody, to identify whether they would be likely to cause serious harm to another prisoner if they were to share a cell. When a prisoner is transferred, their CSRA accompanies them. If the CSRA cannot be located at the time of transfer, a new assessment is undertaken to ensure that risks are appropriately identified.

The processes relating to capturing and transferring risk management information are set out in the Person Escort Record Policy Framework. The framework is currently being reviewed: this will help to capture a broader range of risk information, and support more accurate and consistent completion of the form.

Obtaining the information requested relating to possible miscommunications with respect to person escort records would require each prison to undertake a manual search of all such records for the period in question. That could not be undertaken without incurring disproportionate cost.

When a prisoner arrives in prison reception, risk assessment procedures are carried out in accordance with HM Prison and Probation Service’s current policy frameworks. During the reception process, staff review all available documentation, including the person escort record, and any existing Digital Prison Service alerts, as well as undertaking an observational assessment of the prisoner’s presentation and behaviour. A structured reception screening is then carried out by both operational and healthcare staff, to identify any risks relating to suicide or self-harm, violence, vulnerability, physical or mental health issues, or other safeguarding concerns. In addition, a cell-sharing risk assessment (CSRA) is completed for all prisoners new to custody, to identify whether they would be likely to cause serious harm to another prisoner if they were to share a cell. When a prisoner is transferred, their CSRA accompanies them. If the CSRA cannot be located at the time of transfer, a new assessment is undertaken to ensure that risks are appropriately identified.

The processes relating to capturing and transferring risk management information are set out in the Person Escort Record Policy Framework. The framework is currently being reviewed: this will help to capture a broader range of risk information, and support more accurate and consistent completion of the form.

Obtaining the information requested relating to possible miscommunications with respect to person escort records would require each prison to undertake a manual search of all such records for the period in question. That could not be undertaken without incurring disproportionate cost.

When a prisoner arrives in prison reception, risk assessment procedures are carried out in accordance with HM Prison and Probation Service’s current policy frameworks. During the reception process, staff review all available documentation, including the person escort record, and any existing Digital Prison Service alerts, as well as undertaking an observational assessment of the prisoner’s presentation and behaviour. A structured reception screening is then carried out by both operational and healthcare staff, to identify any risks relating to suicide or self-harm, violence, vulnerability, physical or mental health issues, or other safeguarding concerns. In addition, a cell-sharing risk assessment (CSRA) is completed for all prisoners new to custody, to identify whether they would be likely to cause serious harm to another prisoner if they were to share a cell. When a prisoner is transferred, their CSRA accompanies them. If the CSRA cannot be located at the time of transfer, a new assessment is undertaken to ensure that risks are appropriately identified.

The processes relating to capturing and transferring risk management information are set out in the Person Escort Record Policy Framework. The framework is currently being reviewed: this will help to capture a broader range of risk information, and support more accurate and consistent completion of the form.

In response to all reports by HM Inspectorate of Prison and HM Inspectorate of Probation, H M Prison and Probation Service is required to produce a formal action plan, which is published on the GOV.UK website, to address concerns raised and recommendations made by the Inspectorate.

Learning taken from Inspection reports directly informs policy review and development, and positive practice identified in reports is shared across the agency. Robust internal measures are in place to assure senior leaders that appropriate action is taken where lessons are identified.

We recognise that illicit drug use in prison is too high, and are committed to tackling this to improve safety, support rehabilitation and reduce reoffending. We are investing over £40 million in physical security measures across 34 prisons this financial year, including £10 million on anti-drone measures, to help prevent drugs entering prison.

We work closely with health partners to identify prisoners with a drug problem and support them into treatment. To create the environment and incentives for prisoners to make the right choices, we have funded Incentivised Substance Free Living Units in 85 prisons, which provide a dedicated, supportive environment for any prisoner who wants to live drug-free in prison, using regular drug testing alongside incentives. We are also working to increase access to mutual aid fellowships in prison, which can provide vital ongoing support for people in recovery.

To bring together rehabilitative and security focused activity in custody, we have funded 54 Drug Strategy Leads to ensure local drug strategies are effectively implemented, and to coordinate a whole system approach to tackling drugs. We have also recruited 17 new Group Drug and Alcohol Leads, who support work on drugs and alcohol across their prison groups, and establish links with community providers and local authority partnerships.

The Ministry of Justice is committed to supporting rehabilitation through high-quality education, skills and work activities. National funding for prison education has not been reduced. Inflationary pressures have affected the proportion of the overall budget that can be spent on the Core Education contracts, and this has led to reductions in the volume of delivery that prisons are able to commission. This represents just one element of the wider education, skills and work offer that prisoners are able to access and Governors retain the flexibility to commission provision that best meets the needs of their prison population.

We continue to monitor delivery closely through HMPPS contract management arrangements. In addition, a full evaluation of the new Prisoner Education Service is underway to assess the impact of education provision on prisoner progress and rehabilitation outcomes, and to inform future policy and commissioning decisions.

I refer the noble Lord to the answer I gave to question PQ HL 14560 to Lord Weir on 23 February 2026.

The National Year of Reading is a welcome opportunity to promote a wide range of activity to improve literacy and engagement with reading for people in custody and on probation.

As part of this work we have appointed the first ever Prison Reading Laureate, the author Lee Child. He will champion the transformative power of reading across the criminal justice system, continue expansion of his successful literacy pilot programme which has been running in a number of prisons since 2025 and will bring in more authors to work with prisons across the country, promoting the benefits of reading to rehabilitation.

Reading is a priority for HMPPS who work with many voluntary, community and social enterprise (VCSE) organisations such as the Reading Agency and National Literacy Trust. A programme of work is planned throughout this year to improve national access to books and facilitate workshops with authors. The Youth Custody Service is also launching its first ever Literacy Festival to inspire reading amongst some of the most complex children in our society.

All learners at HMP Berwyn are entitled to access their education through the medium of Welsh should they choose to do so and are asked their language preference on arrival at the prison, and during their education induction. Although take up is historically low, this is facilitated through translated course materials, opportunities to complete assessments in Welsh, and classroom support provided by Welsh speaking staff working within the Education team. Welsh language courses are available to all prisoners on request, alongside a bilingual course on Welsh traditions and customs.

The number of contractual delays caused by late prisoner transport to court attributable to the Prisoner Escort and Custody Service (PECS) suppliers for Basildon, Essex and England between 2023 and 2025 are shown in the table below.

PECS performance remains consistently over 99%, and while even small numbers of delays can have visible impacts in busy courts, we are improving reporting through digital development of a new application, this will further enable PECS to ensure performance data is transparent and accurately reflects what is happening across the system. We value feedback from all stakeholders which enable PECS to ensure performance data is transparent and accurately reflects what is happening across the system.

We recognise the problems we inherited in prisoner transfer with delays occurring at prisons, en route between prison and court and at courts themselves in bringing prisoners to the dock. The Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending and I will chair an oversight body established to review prisoner transfer from end to end. This will monitor and drive performance improvements in prisoner transfer across the country.

We are working with the Department for Transport to issue guidance on PECS’ use of bus lanes to all local authorities. And in London, where traffic regularly causes delays, we are working closely with Transport for London (TfL) to reduce avoidable delays and keep the justice system moving.

The reoffending rates for adults with an index disposal of a community order was 36.4% in 2022/23 and 38.0% in 2023/24. The data can be found in the latest proven reoffending statistics release, in the annual tables here, in table C1a.

Studies have found that short custodial sentences of less than 12 months were associated with higher reoffending rates (approximately 4 percentage points higher) than when court orders of any length had been given (which includes both community orders and suspended sentence orders).

However, it is essential that community punishment works. The Sentencing Act 2026 includes a range of measures to make community punishment tougher. These include banning offenders from attending pubs, bars and clubs, as well as public events such as sports and concerts. The courts will also be able to prohibit an offender from driving as a punishment regardless of the offence they have committed. We have also introduced new tough restriction zones which will restrict offenders to a specific geographical area. These will be electronically monitored and are intended to serve not just as a punishment, but as an important tool to protect victims.

The Crown Court backlogs can cause defendants to spend longer time on remand. This Government is committed to pulling every lever we have – investment, reform and efficiency – so can we turn the tide on the backlog. The Government has invested significantly in the system, including funding unlimited sitting days so that the Crown Court can hear as many cases as possible next year. We have also introduced the Courts and Tribunals Bill to enable much-needed reform of the criminal courts, and are leading a major efficiency drive, including the introduction of ‘blitz courts’ to get through the backlog.

The use of remand is a judicial matter, and there are well established processes for extending Custody Time Limits if needed. Applications must be approved by independent judges and defendants have the right to oppose any application.

The Ministry of Justice's Information Management Policy explains that non-corporate communication channels such as WhatsApp 'must not be used unless absolutely necessary'. The policy directs staff to the Non-corporate communication channels for government business guidance, which is the primary guidance that ministers and officials should follow. Recordkeeping responsibilities are listed in paragraphs 19 to 24.

A review of the harmonised standard for ethnicity data collection is underway by the Government Statistical Service Harmonisation team.

A public consultation between October 2025 and February 2026 sought views from a wide range of users, including Government Departments and public bodies, to understand user needs for ethnic group data. This was supplemented by a programme of engagement activity, including with representatives of all government departments.

ONS have committed to providing an initial response to the public consultation in April, and a full report on the consultation in late summer 2026 will include more detailed information on the departments that responded to the consultation.

Ministers have regular discussions with officials, external experts and ministerial colleagues on a range of issues, including national security, defence and resilience.

The Home Defence Programme was established in August 2024 to build the UK’s resilience to any potential escalation to conflict. It is an evolving and enduring programme of work which provides defence, security and resilience planning, focused on aligning military and civil effort in the event of a period of crisis and international hostilities affecting the UK, informed by and reflecting the recommendations from government strategies, including the Strategic Defence Review, National Security Strategy and Resilience Action Plan.

The Ministry of Justice is actively supporting this work.

The Ministry of Justice and HM Prison and Probation Service are committed to ensuring that prisoners can access high-quality education and skills provision that supports rehabilitation and reduces re-offending.

The contract does not require Education suppliers to provide routine information about redundancies, and as the majority of teaching staff are employed by external providers, it is not possible to provide the information requested.

HMCTS is developing and piloting AI-enabled support for operational activity such as listing in a way that retains appropriate human oversight and accountability for decisions. In line with HMCTS Responsible AI principles, any work to scale AI-enabled tools will include robust processes for how issues and errors will be identified, challenged and corrected. Lessons learned from pilots in courts such as Preston and Isleworth, and subsequent evaluation will inform what safeguards are required for any future wider deployment. All of these have been subject to human oversight and are there to assist decision making in accordance with a new national listing framework to be introduced.

HMCTS is progressing work to expand AI-enabled transcription to support courts and tribunals. The Department has not published an estimate of time savings from the use of AI to transcribe hearings across the court system. It is worth noting that transcription of hearings is one of several use cases for AI assisted transcription. The main driver for hearing transcription is to make justice more open and transparent.

In line with HMCTS Responsible AI principles, decisions on scaling AI-enabled transcription will be informed by evaluation, including impacts on efficiency, quality and user experience, and will include robust processes for how errors will be identified, challenged and corrected.

HMCTS will evaluate the pilot of AI-enabled support for listing against criteria that will include expected:

• reductions in administrative effort associated with listing;

• improved timeliness and consistency of listing activity;

• the impact on listing accuracy and associated rework; and

• the effect on effective use of court capacity.

This will be considered alongside feedback from operational users and the judiciary on usability and confidence. Findings from this stage of the evaluation will inform decisions on any wider deployment. If we proceed, we will design an evaluation approach in line with Government Social Research standards that we would expect to publish as part of the programme of work.

At this current time there are no plans to operate blitz courts in Essex.

The Government is committed to reducing outstanding caseloads in the Crown Court while maintaining progress across all case types.

Targeted initiatives, sometimes referred to as “blitz” courts, are carefully planned and time-limited exercises designed to make best use of available courtrooms, judicial capacity and sitting days. They are intended to increase overall throughput rather than divert resources from other cases. The plan is for London to use two courts at the Central Criminal Court specifically to accommodate the blitz courts.

Listing decisions in the Crown Court are a matter for the independent judiciary. HMCTS works closely with the judiciary to monitor waiting times and operational pressures across the system to ensure that targeted activity in one area does not lead to unintended delays elsewhere.

We continue to fund increased Crown Court sitting days and for 2026/27 we have removed the financial limits on how many days Crown Courts can sit in order to improve timeliness for all court users.

We agree with Sir Brian’s Leveson’s recommendation in the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts that Prisoner Escort and Custody Services (PECS) should be enabled to use bus lanes when transporting prisoners. However, these decisions are ultimately for local authorities.

PECS vehicles already use bus lanes in Manchester, Bristol, Salford and Nottingham. We are currently engaging with local authorities across the country to expand this, and will work with the Department for Transport to ensure that local authorities are aware of the role they can play in reducing prisoner delays. For example, in London we are working closely with Transport for London to pilot a scheme that retimes traffic signals to prioritise PECS vans on three routes in the capital. Around 300 traffic lights will be adjusted so that PECS vehicles are more likely to receive green lights on their journey to court.

HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) is progressing work to expand the use of AI to support court and tribunal operations across a range of use cases. The Department has not published a single estimate of the cost of rolling out AI across HMCTS, as costs and benefits depend on the specific use case, scope and implementation approach. Any decision to deploy AI-enabled tools more widely would be subject to appropriate evaluation and the development of approved business cases, including affordability and value for money in accordance with HMCTS governance and standards.

The Department and HMCTS have due regard to their obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty when developing and implementing policy and operational changes. Equality considerations are taken into account as part of the design and evaluation of service changes, and appropriate equality analysis has informed, and will continue to inform, decisions on the adoption and scaling of AI-enabled tools and services within courts and tribunals. This is undertaken on a use-case-by-use-case basis, rather than through a single blanket assessment.

Blitz courts in London will initially focus on assault on emergency workers and will be listed at Central Criminal Court from April. A total of 500 days have been allocated for this first blitz initiative. After prioritising assaults on emergency workers, we will consider other case types including sentencing cases, breaches and trials with no civilian witnesses.

Blitz courts have been trialled previously and have shown positive results in reducing case backlog. The announcement of uncapped sitting days in the Crown Court in 2026/27 will enable more blitz initiatives to take place. The two court rooms which will be used are part of the existing London Crown Court Cluster.

The Lord Chancellor is committed to transparent and merit-based selection processes that maintain the quality of our judiciary. I refer the hon. Member for Wrekin, Mark Pritchard to the answer I gave on 1 May 2025 to Question 47182 (https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-04-23/47182).

In January 2026, the independent Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) relaunched its website which includes detailed information about the new Judicial Skills and Abilities Framework, and updated guidance about statutory consultation. In addition, the Ministry of Justice works with the JAC and the judiciary to produce the annual Diversity of the Judiciary statistics, with detailed data about judicial appointments.

The Lord Chancellor is committed to transparent and merit-based selection processes that maintain the quality of our judiciary.

Statutory consultation is provided for in legislation and requires the independent Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) to seek views from those with relevant experience, unless the appropriate authority agrees it is not required. It is one of a range of shortlisting and selection tools used by the JAC to ensure that candidates are of good character and have relevant capabilities for the role.

The JAC made changes to the operation of statutory consultation following an independent review in 2022 to provide clearer information about when and how statutory consultation is used. It has recently published an evaluation of those changes alongside updated guidance for candidates and consultees (https://judicialappointments.gov.uk/corp-publication/evaluation-on-the-revised-approach-to-statutory-consultation/).

Candidates can complain to the JAC and, if dissatisfied, to the independent Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman if they believe that their application for appointment has not been handled appropriately.

The independent Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) is designated as a public body under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The JAC is responsible for meeting its statutory obligations under the FOIA and the Data Protection Act 2018, including ensuring requests are handled in line with the relevant legislation. Decisions on the responses to individual Freedom of Information requests, including any associated legal consideration, are for the JAC.

The JAC as a non-departmental public body is responsible for managing its own resources including in relation to meeting its statutory obligations. The governance and accountability arrangements between the Ministry of Justice and the JAC are set out in the framework document agreed in line with HM Treasury’s Managing Public Money, including in relation to governance and financial matters

We appreciate the considerable work that has gone into the inquiry.

His Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) has been engaged with the work of the All-Party Parliamentary Group over many years, including in relation to this latest review. HMPPS will give careful consideration, in collaboration with other partners, to those recommendations in the report that are addressed to it.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on the number of convictions across England and Wales for a wide range of offences in the Outcomes by Offences data tool, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal justice statistics - GOV.UK

The offences that constitute unlawful abortion include procuring an illegal abortion under sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, as well as child destruction under section 1 of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929.

Information centrally held does not specify how many of these convictions are linked to the use of the pills-by-post scheme.

The Department of Health and Social Care is responsible for the policy relating to the pills-by-post scheme.